AMBER Rudd is “committed to making sure I go on” – but calls for her resignation intensified yesterday after immigration removal targets were confirmed.
On Wednesday Rudd said targets for the removal of illegal immigrants did not exist.
But she was forced to admit that they did yesterday in light of new evidence to the contrary.
During questioning prompted by the Windrush scandal, Rudd told MPs that “local” removal goals had been set for “internal performance management”.
READ MORE: Scottish family who face deportation by Home Office living in fear
Insisting that she would “would never support a policy that puts targets ahead of people”, Rudd – who succeeded Theresa May as Home Secretary – said: “The immigration arm of the Home Office has been using local targets for internal performance management.
“These were not published targets against which performance was assessed, but if they were used inappropriately then I am clear that this will have to change.
“I have asked officials to provide me with a full picture of performance measurement tools which are used at all levels, and will update the House and the Home Affairs Select Committee as soon as possible.”
Yesterday the BBC, which uncovered evidence of the targets in a 2015 inspection report, suggested they will be scrapped within days.
READ MORE: Unionists furious at data leak of all their donors
The annual target for voluntary removals – those where individuals notify the Home Office of their intention to leave, not state-ordered deportations – was 12,000 in 2015-16.
Leading fresh immigration calls, Labour’s Diane Abbott told the Commons: “When Lord Carrington resigned over the Falklands, he said it was a matter of honour.
“Isn’t it time that the Home Secretary considered her honour and resigned?”
The SNP’s Alison Thewliss also repeated her quit call to Rudd, citing the “litany of callous incompetence” in her department and accusing the Tory minister of “presiding over a department out of control, marked by cruelty and chaos”.
However, Tory Sir Nicholas Soames said Rudd has the “total support” of her party in “trying to resolve a very difficult legacy issue” and backbench colleague Philip Davies claimed opposition parties are “out of touch” with working-class communities on immigration.
Addressing the resignation question directly, Rudd responded: “I do take seriously my responsibility but I do think I am the person who can put it right.”
The morning row was followed by an afternoon bungle when Rudd suggested that the Cabinet had not finalised its position on post-Brexit customs union membership.
When asked about her views on the subject at an event for parliamentary journalists, she said: “I’m not going to be drawn on that.
“We still have a few discussions to be had in a really positive, consensual and easy way among some of my Cabinet colleagues in order to arrive at a final position.”
The comment prompted a flurry of responses from political rivals and a prompt Twitter clarification from Rudd, who posted: “ I should have been clearer – of course when we leave the EU we will be leaving the customs union. I wasn’t going to get into ongoing cabinet discussions about our future trading relationship.”
On the Windrush row, which has seen people from other Commonwealth countries threatened with deportation and post-war landing cards destroyed, she said it had been “a difficult few weeks”.
Rudd continued: “I feel very seriously responsible and involved in what we are going to do about addressing the Windrush crisis, or fiasco – whatever people care to call it.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel